An Inconvenient War On Truth

There’s a new design community effort afoot and its summation
statement starts like this: “Climate-related disasters are increasing.
Designers like you can help to change this.” Now I’m
no expert on activist promotion, but a non sequitur or blatant inaccuracy
is no way to kick off a community–wide effort of any kind. Statements
like this describe irresponsibility and naiveté; not the sorts
of qualities that should be associated with genuinely positive efforts
and responsible practices.

I’m referring to smashLAB’s
new online effort called Design
Can Change. This slickly designed effort advocates some wonderful
ideas, but its introductory statement is either a bald–face lie or a terribly
naïve perpetuation of idiocy. I say this because unless blessed with divine
powers, designers can do absolutely nothing to change the fact that natural
disasters – climate–related or not – are happening,
increasing, or decreasing.

smashLAB seems to have swallowed some politically charged koolaid – and/or
– they don’t care to behave ethically. Or perhaps they simply don’t understand
the harm they’re perpetuating. Ignorance might be bliss, but it’s certainly
no basis for a potentially powerful effort.

Those interested in truth rather than misguided ideology know that the
responsible science on issues of climate change is clear and in direct
conflict with the perverted versions made most public for purposes of
anarchist propaganda and political demagoguery. Undistorted science shows
that there is only one known factor contributing to our earth’s latest
climate trend – the same factor that has always driven our earth’s wildly
fluctuating climate. It is not associated with any geopolitical issue
or supposedly detrimental human behavior.

Let me suggest that if you don’t know what that factor is you have
no business joining smashLAB’s effort or contributing to the related
discourse in any way. Instead, you’ve got some education to acquire. You
might start with this
BBC program and then delve into some otherrelevantinformation on the matter. Or
you could just stay the heck out of matters you’re simply not equipped
to discuss or participate in. It’s the responsible thing to do.

Terrific idea – abominable justification

As for the Design Can Change effort, the root request is absolutely admirable
and positive: work to engage in and promote sustainable practices in your
individual and business activity, including influencing clients and vendors.
The foundational impetus described by the effort, however, is ridiculously
naïve, misleading, and largely inaccurate …as are nearly all
of the conclusions purported by the perverted science associated with
it. Furthermore, some of the actions advocated by this effort are detrimental
to society and world cultures. Again, if you can’t spot which ones,
you’ve no business joining or commenting on this effort.

…we have to fully understand
the impact and validity of the messages we design and communicate to the
world. Else we wield our skills as a weapon, firing blindly in all directions
without concern for or understanding of the consequences.

This is, in all respects, a tragedy of irresponsibility. It is sad to
see a respected design agency abandon ethics and morality in favor of
blind ideology. I wonder, can you agree or do you think that ethics and
morality only matter when they don’t conflict with your own ideals?
I suggest you commit to some sober personal reflection on this point and
to some intellectual honesty with yourself. If you have trouble separating
ethics and ideology, maybe design isn’t the right profession for
you. In fact, maybe a profession isn’t the right profession for
you.

Clearly, I take this quite seriously, and here’s the rub: As designers,
we wield power that must be used responsibly. We establish important communicative
norms. We drive and define conversations. We determine the impact of specific
messages. It is therefore our responsibility to act in a correspondingly
moral and ethical manner. In other words, we have to fully understand
the impact and validity of the messages we design and communicate to the
world. Else we wield our skills as a weapon, firing blindly in all directions
without concern for or understanding of the consequences.

If our community is going to mobilize to begin exerting more of our powerful
influence in specific social matters and matters of politics, specifically
regarding the facts of science, it is mandatory that we have a firm grasp
of both the scientific facts and the logical conclusions of our communication.
Further, we need to know who’s saying what and why they’re saying it.
In this case, more than any usual case, our responsibilities to the audience
far outweigh either our client’s preferences or our own. Here, as always,
we have an obligation to decline ethically or morally bankrupt work. The
same goes for misguided efforts, even when they seem to be compassionate.

Designers are passionate people. Efforts born of passion for seemingly
noble causes are easy for us to get drawn into. But we’ve got to look
below the surface of the slick presentation and the seemingly compassion–based
logic to know what it is we’re involving ourselves in. We’re best served
by starting with the foundational message and accuracy of the purported
facts when evaluating the character and worthiness of any effort. We insist
on doing this with our clients; why should we fail to do so with ourselves?

In the end, I do agree with some of what smashLAB is advocating. Yes,
please do your part to practice and encourage sustainable activity. Please
consider your environment when you engage in your daily activities. These
are responsible and healthy things to do. Just don’t rely on motivations
born of blind ideology, ignorance, or demagoguery to compel you to do
so. Else you end up dancing on puppet strings as an unwitting soldier
in a war on truth.